Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Can Support for Israel Include Criticism of Israeli Government Policy? .
Ethan D. Bloch
Albany, NY

1. Personal Remarks

Having spent part of my childhood in Israel, having visited there virtually every year since starting college, and having most of my family (including my father) in Israel, my views about Israel are not unbiased - I have a deep love for Israel and its people. I strongly support the existence of the state of Israel, and, more than that, I believe that the state of Israel is a vital part of the preservation and development of the Jewish people. I belief that Israel faces enemies against whom it needs to defend itself, and therefore needs a strong IDF to survive. In short, I am a Zionist. Needless to say, I am extremely disturbed by the violence currently taking place in Israel.

2. The Main Issue

That most American Jews support Israel, and condemn the violence perpetrated against Israelis, is well known. What is also true, but rarely heard publicly these days, is that among those of us who support Israel, there are vastly differing opinions on what such support for consists of. In the media, and from much of the Jewish leadership in the U.S., one hears support for Israel phrased almost exclusively in right-wing terms - that negotiating now with the Palestinians would show Israeli weakness; that territorial compromise would threaten Israel; that the Palestinians understand only force; that getting rid of Arafat would end violence against Israelis; that Sharon's policies must be supported; that support for Palestinian human rights, and criticism of current Israeli government policy, are disloyal to Israel.

I believe that there is another viewpoint, one that is shared by many Israelis and American Jews, and that is no less grounded in support for Israel: that Israel's right to exist securely in peace can only be assured if Palestinians also have a right to self-determination; that no purely military solution can bring safety to Israelis or Palestinians, and that negotiations are needed with whoever leads the Palestinians; that territorial compromise, including a withdrawal from settlements, is a necessary component of a comprehensive solution; that Jewish belief, which considers human life a supreme value, does not allow for the continued rule of one people by another, which only leads to violence and hatred; that American Jews who support Israel have the right, and the duty, to state principled disagreements with current Israeli government policy publicly. A large segment, and perhaps even a majority, of the American Jewish community holds these views, but many are afraid to speak their minds, for fear of being accused of disloyalty to the Jewish people, or self-hatred; they want to support Israel, but the only vocal support for Israel they see is extremely right-wing, and so they keep quiet, not finding a place to fit in politically.

2. What is Support for Israel Really?

Supporting Israel means supporting Israel's right to exist in peace and security; it means visiting Israel (as I and my family do every summer, and as I would encourage everyone to do, regardless of political views); it means learning about what is happening in Israel; it means expressing one's views to your congressperson, etc. But, just as being a patriotic American does not imply automatic support for all American government policy, supporting Israel does not mean supporting all Israeli government policy.

By way of analogy, I can think of situations when my wife, Nancy, and I discuss a particularly close friend who is going through a difficult period, and is in need of support. One of us might express sympathy for the friend, complaining how life has been unfair to her, while the other might view the friend as having been at fault for much of her troubles; one of us might suggest that we tell the friend to consider rethinking her approach, while the other might suggest that we avoid criticizing the friend. Each of these views is legitimate, and each might come from genuine concern for the friend.

How should we show support for our friend in such a situation? We should offer material help when needed; and we should visit the friend as often as possible. But should we say "anything you do is fine," or should we state honestly that there is a problem, even when our advice was not asked for? I believe that honest criticism is, in the long run, more helpful to the friend than blind support.

The analogy is not perfect, but, nonetheless, if I and other American Jews see Israeli government policy that we feel is very self-destructive, then true concern for Israel means that we have to speak up - we need to do so in a way that makes it clear that we are coming from a place of support of Israel, not hostility to Israel, but we must speak up clearly and honestly.

3. No Consensus in Israel

We who don't live in Israel cannot make decisions for the Israelis. On this I think most of us in the American Jewish community can agree. If there were a clear consensus in the Israeli public, then it might be argued that anyone who supports Israel has to accept what the Israeli consensus says. Even if that were a valid argument, it does not apply at present, because there is currently no consensus in Israel about what Israel should be doing. The Israeli public is split, and any one policy regarding Israel, be it right wing or left wing, will face a large opposition among the Israeli public. Moreover, although a majority of Israelis will likely vote for Sharon in January 2003, a majority of Israelis also supports the withdrawal of Israel from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including the dismantling of settlements, which Sharon opposes. So, which aspect of the polls in Israel constitutes what Israelis "really want," given that Israelis seem to contradict themselves? There used to be a single Israeli consensus position many years ago, but there is no such thing now.

If Israelis are split politically, why would anyone expect American Jews to be otherwise? The Israeli political climate, and in particular the Israeli press, encourages vigorous dialog on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Similar open discussion would benefit American Jews as well.

4. Not Everyone Wants Open Discussion

I welcome disagreement among American Jews regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Let people with my viewpoint express our views, let those Jews who take a right-wing approach express theirs, and may the best arguments win. Unfortunately, there are others in the American Jewish community who are doing their best to stifle discussion of these issues. One method used by some very right-wing American Jews to prevent open public discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been by setting themselves up as the arbiters of who is pro-Israel and who isn't.

For example, I recall an article in our local Jewish newspaper (Jewish World, 10 Oct. 2002) about the response by the group CAMERA to a series on NPR's Morning Edition about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I heard part of the series, and what I heard seemed reasonably well balanced in terms of views expressed. CAMERA complained that most of the historians quoted in the series were anti-Israel; included in the list of anti-Israel historians were four Israeli authors, including Benny Morris and Tom Segev. These two authors may not accept some of the standard versions of Israeli history, but that is their right as scholars. What is not right is for CAMERA, whose leaders live in the U.S., to label these two loyal Israelis as anti-Israel just because they don't happen to have right-wing views. Even worse, the author of the article did not give the response of Morris, Segev and the other two to CAMERA's accusation.

CAMERA and others regularly label anyone not sufficiently right-wing as anti-Israel, and thereby de-legitimize their views. This phenomenon is nothing but McCarthyism, pure and simple. There should be no place in Jewish public discussion for this unacceptable practice. Unfortunately, it is rarely challenged.

5. Take a Closer Look

Take a closer look at those in the American Jewish community who say that Israel is facing such a severe crisis at present that American Jews must rally around Israel and support the policies of the present Israeli government. Many of these people said the same thing during the times of Prime Ministers Netanyahu and Shamir - but they did not say the same during the times of Prime Ministers Barak and Rabin, who steered a more moderate course.

There is some hypocrisy here. Either one should support every Israeli government uncritically (which means completely changing one's political stripes every few years, which few really do), or one has to accept that one can be pro-Israel and still criticize Israeli government policy. As for the argument that "now is an emergency, and so now is different than during other Israeli governments," I ask when hasn't Israel faced emergencies? As for the argument that "Barak was a danger to Israel, so then we had to criticize him," I would say that that is a matter of opinion; many in Israel would argue, and I personally agree, that Sharon is more of a danger to Israel than Barak ever was.

6. What is the Real Threat to Israel?

One of the arguments against criticizing Israeli government action, even when one's criticism is based on concern for Israel, is that the state of Israel is currently facing an existential threat, so all subtleties should be thrown aside, and we have to rush to Israel's defense. I certainly agree that when Israel is threatened, we must support Israel. But what is the real threat to Israel today?

That Israelis have suffered terribly from the current violence goes without saying, but is the violence so bad that Israel is under existential threat from the Palestinians? Many leaders in the American Jewish community say yes, but the evidence does not bear them out. It is true that innocent Israelis have been killed in the current violence, and that is a tragedy (of course, many more Palestinians have been killed, and that is a tragedy too). Militarily, however, the Palestinians have never constituted an existential threat to Israel. The Palestinians, who are economically bankrupt and militarily unsophisticated, cannot pose any real threat to the IDF. By contrast, Iraq and Iran, with their missile technology, are the real military threats. A disillusioned Israeli public is a threat to Israel's future. The ever-growing conflict between secular and religious Jews in Israel is a real threat. Environmental problems in Israel are another growing threat. Until the Palestinian question is resolved, Israel cannot turn its full attention to the real threats it faces.

7. Media Bias and Anti-Semitism

Another common argument against criticizing Israeli government action, even when one's criticism is based on concern for Israel, is based on ideas such as: Most of the world is anti-Israel; the international media is biased against Israel; there has been a recent rise in anti-Semitism. In these circumstances, the argument goes, all Jews should stand together in unqualified support of the Israeli government.

One can argue with the details of these charges, though I don't have time for lengthy discussion here, but let me mention two points. With regard to the media, for example, the very same media that right-wing Jews consider to be anti-Israel, is also considered to be excessively pro-Israel by much of the left in the U.S., and most of the Arab world. If the media angers both sides, then it is probably doing something right. Reporters and editors are human being, and they will on occasion make mistakes in their reporting on Israel. They will also show some sympathy towards the Palestinians, who are human beings no less than we. But let us not blow up such incidents into more than they really are. Indeed, when looked at without excessive sensitivity, the American media, while occasionally making unfair criticism of Israel, is on the whole much more pro-Israel than anti, and show much more sympathy for Israelis as victims than for Palestinians as victims.

As for the sudden rise in anti-Semitism, surely anti-Semitism exists, and has always existed, and it should be combated forcefully. Without question, an attempt to single Israel out for criticism, as at the Durban conference against racism, indeed raises suspicions of anti-Semitism lurking behind political statements. However, not all criticism of Israel is automatically anti-Semitism. Though some critics of Israel are anti-Semites, others are certainly not, and lumping the two groups together only alienates the non-anti-Semites further. Moreover, is it really a coincidence that it is precisely during these past two years that anti-Israel sentiment world-wide has risen? Might it not be the case that Israel's unnecessarily harsh treatment of the Palestinians, which makes the Palestinians rather than the Jews appear to be the underdog, has given people who are otherwise anti-Semites an excuse to become more vocal and visible than before, and has made it harder for our non-Jewish allies to stand up to anti-Semitic statements.

8. We Shouldn't Air Israel's Dirty Laundry

Common to all the arguments against criticizing Israeli government policy is that the world is against us, and so we shouldn't give anti-Israel forces any ammunition by airing Israel's dirty laundry in public. Well, the anti-Israel forces have already aired all the dirty laundry, and some of the laundry is, I am sorry to say, indeed dirty. Some other people in the Middle East have even dirtier laundry than Israel, but just saying that doesn't help Israel.

Honesty, as always, is the best policy. If you sincerely believe that the government of Israel does no wrong, then by all means say that. But, if you believe as I do, and as many Israelis and American Jews, that prime minister Sharon and his government have no plans for promoting peace, and do little other than use excessive force in a futile attempt to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by military means alone, then you need to say that too, in the context of stating support for Israel. When I speak with both left-wing pro-Palestinian activists, and when I speak with right-wing Jews, I say the exact same thing, which is to start with a clear statement of my support for Israel and my personal connection to Israel, and then to explain why I am critical of the current Israeli government. Such a middle ground is not often heard today. Right now most Americans hear only two hard-to-believe extreme voices on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: right-wing support for Israel that uncritically endorses all Israeli government policy, and is often anti-Palestinian; and left-wing criticism of Israeli government policy that is often anti-Israel. I take the middle ground, which strongly supports for Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but which also empathizes with Palestinian aspirations to statehood, and criticizes Israeli government policy when I believe such criticism is merited --- for example the continued expansion of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians. The American public will see through irrationally uncritical support of Israel, and will better understand a pro-Israel approach that doesn't deny problems, but puts them in a meaningful context.

9. Is Compromise Defeatist?

Right-wing American Jews often argue that Israel should do what it must to defend itself, and that just as the establishment of the state of Israel was nothing short of miraculous, if we keep focused on winning the war against terror, Israel will eventually win it too. Hence, the argument goes, we shouldn't give in to the Palestinians, and in particular shouldn't reward them by giving them territory, not to mention a state. People with views such as mine are therefore categorized, and dismissed, as "defeatist" for wanting to compromise with the Palestinians.

The use of labels such as "defeatist" as a way to dismiss opposing views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not only inappropriate in general, but it is simply wrong in this particular case. Were I, and others of similar views, to suggest that Israel simply give the Palestinians what they want to appease them, then that would indeed be defeatist - but that is not at all what I, or anyone I know in the Zionist left, is suggesting.

There are times in life when one has to fight for one's rights, sometimes using words, and sometimes using physical force. There are other times when compromise, rather than fighting, is the best approach. As it says in Ecclesiastes (3:3,8) "A time for slaying and a time for healing, a time for tearing down and a time for building up; … A time for loving and a time for hating, a time for war and a time for peace." The trick is to know when it is time for which.

I am very glad that in 1948 the Israelis fought to establish the State of Israel. But much has changed since 1948, politically, culturally and militarily. I believe that right now, Israel can survive as both a Jewish state and a democracy if it leaves the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the best way to do that is via negotiations with the Palestinians. Reaching a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians is not defeatism, but, to the contrary, it is in Israel's best interest. It is also in the Palestinians' best interest, which makes it an even more laudable goal.

10. Not a Zero Sum Game

Some American Jews, in their efforts to defend Israel against criticism, go on at length about everything wrong that the Palestinians, and more generally the Arabs, ever did. Similarly, many supporters of the Palestinians spend the bulk of their time listing all of Israel's faults, and some question Israel's right to exist. Isn't it a sad situation when many supporters of each side spend their time saying not what is right about their side, but mostly what is wrong with the other side.

Some people view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a zero sum game - the only way for one side to win is by having the other side lose. One side is the good guys, and the other side is the bad guys. That is a very simplistic viewpoint. As I see it, both sides have many good citizens, but both sides have done things to hurt the other side. The bottom line, however, is that the Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in a small piece of land, and either both will get enough to satisfy their basic needs and aspirations, or neither will.

I have no doubts that Israel has a right to exist. I feel so secure in this fact, that I don't have to view Israel's right to exist as threatened by someone else's right to exist. Indeed, if we Jews have a right to a state of our own, I cannot deny the same right to the Palestinians - whatever mistakes their leaders may have made in 1948, or are making now. If you really want peace, don't spend your time telling us how the Palestinians have missed every opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace, to use Aba Eban's well-known phrase, but rather tell us how new opportunities for peace can be created.

11. Now to Politics

Let me clarify some of my criticism of the current Israeli government. Clearly much of the blame for the recent violence lay with the Palestinian leadership, and we should strongly condemn them for their support for terrorism. The question is, how should Israel respond to Palestinian violence.

When someone hits you, it is an understandable urge to want to hit back. However, as we try to teach our children, it is rarely the best policy to follow that urge. What holds for children fighting on playgrounds also holds for Israelis and Palestinians. Is Israel really preventing violence against its citizens by subjecting the bulk of the Palestinian population to collective punishments in the form of never-ending curfews; by humiliating decent Palestinian civilians by making them wait endlessly at roadblocks, subject to the whims of 18 year old Israeli soldiers; by preventing ill, and pregnant, Palestinians from reaching hospitals; by killing numerous Palestinian civilians while trying to assassinate terrorist leaders; by making the Palestinian public, which was getting tired of Arafat's corrupt rule, rally around him because of Israel's lengthy sieges of his office compound; by making it harder, not easier, for Palestinian moderates to succeed - for example twice shutting down the offices of the P.L.O. representative in Jerusalem Sari Nusseibeh, who is trying to convince other Palestinians to renounce the right of return to Israel; by placing tens of thousands of Palestinians under curfew in Hebron so that several hundred Jews could wander around that city's kasbah during Simhat Torah; by failing to prevent groups of settlers who have prevented West Bank Palestinians from harvesting their olives (and sometimes even stealing the olives); by continuing to take Palestinian land for settlements, and now for building the separation fence not on the green line but to the east of it?

Certainly, Israel needs to defend itself, but these sorts of actions only push the Palestinians into further economic and political desperation, which feeds terrorism. The Palestinians themselves are ultimately to blame for engaging in terrorism, but regardless of who is to blame, it is both self-defeating and immoral of Israel to retaliate as it does; all it does is fan the flames of hatred and violence even further. Sadly, the current Israeli government has no substantial peace plan, and is doing nothing to promote peace. All that Sharon offers the Israeli public is that every time the Palestinians hurt Israelis, he hurts the Palestinians back.

There is another level at which the current Israeli government policy is very troubling. As much as some Palestinians are engaging in acts of violence, there is no question that Israel is the power in control. Israel has military might that outweighs anything that the Palestinians will ever have. Recently, Israel essentially reconquered the bulk of the West Bank. Israel also has the continued backing of the U.S. for almost everything it does. As the stronger power of the two, it is Israel's responsibility to try to move the peace process forward at least as much as it is the Palestinian's. Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, Sharon's government has buried every American proposal for reviving the peace process (Tenet, Mitchell, "road map").

12. How Do We Approach Political Conflicts?

There are two basic approaches a person can take when trying to deal with any political conflict: one can be ideologically pure, or one can try to solve the problem -- doing both simultaneously is usually impossible. If we view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the lens of who is right and who is wrong, we then have to decide who has a stronger claim to the Land of Israel, and who came first, the Jews or the Palestinians; we also start arguing about who did what to whom in 1948, in 1967, etc.; some people even argue over whether there is or is not a Palestinian people (some ask the same about the Jewish people). I think such arguments are futile.

Israelis and Palestinians are being killed regularly. The Israeli and Palestinian economies are in shambles. We do not have the luxury of historical debates. We need to do what we can to save as many lives as possible. Most Israelis are pragmatists, not ideologues. They want security and prosperity, not every square inch of the historic land of Israel. They want to live in peace, and don't need to win points in debating history. There is no mitzvah to win arguments; there is a very important mitzvah to save lives.

13. The Political Bottom Line

History has shown that Jews and Palestinians need to be separated. We cannot turn back the clock, and go back to the post-1967 era when West Bank Palestinians "knew their place" and let Israel do what it wants, just as racists in the Southern U.S. could not turn back the clock during the civil rights movement and get African-Americans to go back to "knowing their place." Sharon and his supporters think that if they use enough force, the Palestinians will cry "uncle," and let Israel do what it wants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That won't work, just as it hasn't worked anywhere else in the world. Sharon ran for office on the promise of peace and security; sadly, he has brought neither.

Without separation, in a few years there will be a Palestinian majority between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river, and Israel would either stop being a state with a Jewish majority (which would negate the whole purpose of the Zionist movement), or it would become a genuine apartheid state. To keep Israel as both a Jewish state and a democracy, Israelis and Palestinians must be separated. This separation could be done in one of two ways: either expel the majority of the Palestinians, or separate the land into two states, one for each people. The former is both immoral and, in the world's current political climate, not feasible. The only way to bring peace to the Middle East is to partition the land into two states. All genuinely pragmatic people on both sides know that such a partition would be based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon border changes. That many people on both sides have this understanding is the light at the end of the tunnel - unfortunately, as one Israeli wag put it, there is no tunnel at present.

14. What About the Palestinians?

As a proud Jew, I am certainly offended, and frustrated, that some Palestinians (including some of their moderates) deny our connection to the Land of Israel, and at times make anti-Semitic statements. However, if we wait until the Palestinians accept our claim to the Land of Israel before reaching a political solution, we will wait in vain, and many innocent people on both sides will be condemned to die needlessly. Reaching a political settlement with the Palestinians is not about them accepting our view of history, nor us accepting theirs. Peace entails nothing more than a realization on both sides that the other side is not going away, and that pragmatic compromise (in the form of one state for the Jews and one for the Palestinians) is necessary.

I have heard some otherwise liberal American Jews say that the current violence shows that the Palestinians are "not like us" Western liberals, and that they are inherently violent, and, in particular, they are particularly inclined towards suicide bombing; hence, we cannot make a peace treaty with them. It is true that there are Palestinian extremists, and it is true that some Palestinian children are undergoing extreme indoctrination towards violence, but I see no evidence of that the majority of Palestinians are extremists. We have our extremists, and indoctrination, too - are Jewish children who were brought to pray at the grave of Baruch Goldstein (who massacred 29 Palestinians in Hebron) not being indoctrinated to support violence? The real issue is not indoctrination but the fact that many Palestinians have personally suffered loses during the Oslo process (and generally during the years since 1967), and it is their current desperate situation that leads to their support for violence -- they have not been shown that any alternative benefits them. We must strongly condemn Palestinian terrorism, but if we wish to prevent more such terrorism, then we need to address the root cause of the violence, which is the current political situation on the ground. The notion that the Palestinians are "not like us," but are somehow inherently prone to violence, is racism, pure and simple.

15. The Settlements

As a Jew, I believe that in theory it is our right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel, including the West Bank. However, politics rarely follows anyone's theory. There happen to be millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and they have every right to stay in their homes, in what they consider their homeland no less than we consider it ours. The only way to keep Jews and Palestinians from continuing to kill each other is to follow the old saying "good fences make good neighbors," with each people in their own state, with a clear, and well guarded, border between them. And that can only happen with an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Does that mean giving up on the Jewish right to live in some parts of the Biblical Land of Israel? Unfortunately, yes. It also means that many Palestinians will have to give up on the idea of returning to Haifa and Jaffa. Some Jews say that it is racist to bar Jews from settling wherever they want in the West Bank. But is it really racist to save lives by ending the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? And why do they say that it is racist to keep Jews from returning to Hebron, when they don't seem to find it racist to keep Palestinians from returning to Jaffa? The bottom line is that today's world is divided up into countries, and people can live anywhere in their own country, but cannot go live in any other country without receiving permission. That's not racism, that's the way the world works. It keeps people safe. It's what Israelis and Palestinians need - to be normal countries with a border between.

It might appear that the goal of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is religiously motivated, and in part that is true. However, for many supporters of the settlements, especially secular supporters such as Prime Minister Sharon, the goal of the settlements has been all along to foil a negotiated solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by placing settlements in such a way as to prevent territorial contiguity for a future Palestinian state - leaving the Palestinians with Bantustans at best. In this way, the settlements are making a peaceful resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict very difficult, and as such are causing many more lives than necessary to be lost on both sides. The settlers earnestly believe in their project, and I respect them for that, but to my mind, and the mind of many Israelis, they are causing unnecessary bloodshed. The settlements are certainly not the only obstacle to an Israeli/Palestinian peace; that would be simplistic - elements on both sides share the blame. But the settlements are a major obstacle to peace. If one believes that the goal of Zionism is to reclaim every square inch of land that the Jews ever possessed, then the settlements are a good thing, even if they make peace less likely, and lead to increased violence between Jews and Palestinians. If, on the other hand, one takes a pragmatic approach toward Zionism (as do most Israelis and American Jews), and one believes that it is more important to have a secure and flourishing Israel than to maximize Israel's territory, then one must support the dismantling of the settlements as part of any future peace deal.

16. Peace is Possible

There are those who say that it's all fine an good to talk about peace, negotiations, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and the like, but that it's a lot of hot air, because it takes two to make peace, and the Palestinians don't want peace. The trump card given in favor of this claim is that at Camp David II, Prime Minister Barak made a great offer and was turned down by the Palestinians, and so we now see that the Palestinians never wanted peace all along.

I believe that the above argument is wrong, for two reasons. First, Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories is not just a reward for the Palestinians - it's the best possible way to guarantee security and prosperity to Israelis; the continuation of the current situation only guarantees more violence and economic decline for both Israelis and Palestinians. So, the question is not whether the Palestinians want peace, but is Israel doing everything it can to get out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Second, the truth about Camp David II, and Barak's offer in particular, is much more complicated than the simplistic view that Barak made a great offer, and the Palestinians turned down that great offer. I cannot go into the details here, but the bottom line is that both Barak and Arafat made many errors, before and during Camp David II. Arafat's faults are well known, but Barak shares much of the blame for the failure of Camp David II, from his continued building of settlements when he was prime minister (which made the Palestinians view him as insincere in his pursuit of peace), to his lack of preparation for Camp David II (for example, he hadn't laid the proper groundwork with regard to Jerusalem prior to the conference), his take-it-or-leave-it approach, and his constant political zig-zagging. Moreover, in spite of these all these errors, the negotiations at Taba, after Camp David II, showed that progress in negotiations could have been made, though by that time Barak had caused his government to collapse by his abysmal political skills.

We don't really know whether a peace agreement is possible, because we've never really given it a try. I believe that if Rabin had not been assassinated, there would most likely be peace today. He decided that peace was the best option, and he went for it in a direct way, without looking back, though with Israel's security needs always in mind. After Rabin was killed, things went down hill. Netanyahu did his best to avoid making peace, and Barak zig-zagged so much, and was politically so incompetent, that his efforts were never workable. We are commanded as Jews to pursue peace, and we need to try it. I tend to support Labor leader Amram Mitzna's approach, which is to try negotiations without pre-conditions full force for a year, including an immediate withdrawal from Gaza both to protect Israeli lives and to jump start the peace process, but if that doesn't work, then to separate unilaterally from the Palestinians.

In spite of the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians, the facts on the ground are the same now as before the violence started: both the Jews and the Palestinians claim the same piece of land. We can either divide the land, or we can fight till one side crushes the other. I used to believe that peace was possible between Israel and the Palestinians. In spite of everything that has happened over the past few years, I still believe that there will be peace one day, because most people on both sides want to live their lives with safety and economic prosperity, and don't want to keep fighting to the death. It is only a question of how long - and how many innocent people on both sides will be killed, and how many lives will be ruined - until the politicians on both sides sit down and work out a peace treaty. I am writing this essay because I want to ask both Jews and Palestinians to support your moderates, not your extremists, and in that way to hasten peace, and save the lives of my, and your, loved ones.